Madam Speaker, I rise today to respond to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington on December 11, 2018, with respect to an answer to an Order Paper question.
In his argument, the hon. opposition member argued that the government's response to Question No. 2001 was not a response and as such breached his capability to access information.
Question No. 2001 asked:
With regard to the government’s decision not to provide costs associated with legal assistance to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman: (a) who made the decision to deny legal assistance costs; (b) was the decision in (a) supported by the Minister of National Defence; (c) on what date was the decision in (a) made; and (d) which Ministers, exempt staff, or other government employees have or will receive taxpayer-funded legal assistance in relation to the case?
As mentioned by the hon. member, the response tabled stated:
With respect to legal assistance provide to specific individuals, a response could disclose personal and solicitor-client privileged information. Therefore the Government must respectfully decline to respond.
If we look at page 511 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, we will find the following quote:
....if a question to a Minister touches upon a matter that is sub judice, it is likely that the Minister will have more information than the Speaker concerning the matter and can determine whether answering the question may cause prejudice. The Minister may refuse to answer the question, as is his or her prerogative.
Consequently, Madam Speaker, I believe you will find that the response to the hon. member is perfectly acceptable, considering the circumstances surrounding Question No. 2001. As such, I respectfully submit that this is a question of debate and as such does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.